UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Banning Policy

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Policy Discussion
Revision as of 16:16, 1 October 2007 by Hagnat (talk | contribs) (Protected "UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Banning Policy" [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Bans, right now, are somewhat broken. Mostly, they work, but in some cases, they are insufficient. Someone can be banned for a day, month, and then a year successively, in a fit of stupid aggression. I suggest that, if the wiki user has been here longer than a month, and has 'vandalized' at most one page, at least a day must pass between being banned for a month and being permabanned. Also, the 'banned for a year' level, would be eliminated entirely. Why? Name me one person who came back after their year was up. Second: A contributor who had been present for a month or more before being permabanned in circumstances similar to Jedaz's would be able to apply for an 'unbanning'. They would be considered to be on probation- one vandalism and they are re-permabanned. In order to prevent abuse, one could only be un-perma'd once a year. Also, they could update building statuses, and give news reports, but not report vandalism, make suggestions, or post on talk pages. This probation would continue for a month, and at the end of the month, the sysops would vote. 50% Unban required to give them all permissions back. If it fails, but they have not vandalized, they still get the right to post on talk-pages back. The probation will continue until the person is unbanned by the sysops. The person must get a sysop to sponsor their unbanning.


Summary:

  • Delete the 'Ban for a Year' level of banning.
  • For users present longer than a month, banned for a month must be seperated from permabanning by one full day.
  • Complex "Un-Perma-Ban" system for month or longer contributors who messed up in a fit of anger.

(Basics:Probation+restriction of rights), sysop vote, if it's favorable to person being unbanned they get privileges back.)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. If only to plaster me name elsewhere on the wiki in my forever mad attempt to catch up to Xoid. I'm kidding.Really. --User:Axe27/Sig 02:00, 23 September 2007 (BST)
  2. because I feel sorry for Xoid, actually I feel sorry for everything at the moment....blame it on the gears of war trailer.... The man 20:56, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Against

  1. If you want to make a policy like this, the least I'll ask you is to use the Guidelines as the place where you are making the changes. That said, I think the system, when applied in the right way, is more than lenient with users that have an history: you can't say two warnings and at least three bans until you even get the posibility of a "serious" 1 month ban is too much, and there's still the possibility of having your warnings erased with time and contributions. Maybe the system is being abused or sometimes ignored, but the idea is right and I stand beside it. Changes are needed, but not here. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:45, 16 September 2007 (BST)
    Okay, again:Just put this out here to clear the policies page and allow the good policies to get the air they deserve. Nalikill 23:47, 16 September 2007 (BST)
  2. As Matthew... now, where's my cracker? ;P --WanYao 23:53, 16 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Attempts to fix a nonexistant problem --The Grimch U! E! 05:13, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  4. As Grimch --~~~~ [talk] 07:39, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  5. --Jorm 07:41, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  6. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:52, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  7. --Karlsbad 09:42, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  8. -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 09:47, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  9. --Goofy McCoy mfd HK-47 talk 13:12, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  10. --Pavluk A! E! 13:40, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  11. If a user was permabanned, he/she most likely deserved it. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 14:09, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  12. -- Vista  +1  15:40, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  13. It seems pretty HARD to get permabanned to me, and those who regret having this imposed only seem to find religion after they realize that they've been consigned to oblivion. Not exactly the way it works, it it? I feel like this stuff just treats the mods more like police than we want them to behave. The goal is smooth functioning of the community, and I doubt that the mods love chasing jerks around. A couple chances, then goodbye jerk. I have not seen one convincing argument that someone was truly unfairly treated by one mod and was then summarily banned without recourse. Every supporting example for this policy totally deserved what they got in my evaluation.--Squid Boy 18:42, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  14. this is stupid--Zinker 02:45, 18 September 2007 (BST)
  15. --Karekmaps?! 12:59, 18 September 2007 (BST)
  16. If you manage to get yourself permabanned, you're either an idiot, an ass, or young and stupid. The last can change over time, but not over the period of time this wiki deals with. The first two rarely change. --Penta 15:38, 18 September 2007 (BST)
  17. --There's nothing wrong with the current system. --8 Bucks 15:39, 18 September 2007 (BST)
  18. --As far as we know, long term bans are unusual. The mods seem unenthusiastic to even warn people at the moment, and lengthy bans are unusual anyway - probably not worth rocking the boat right now --Crabappleslegalteam 01:07, 19 September 2007 (BST)
  19. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 19:04, 19 September 2007 (BST)
  20. --Ryiis 17:25, 20 September 2007 (BST)
  21. Kill You have to realy go some way to get yourself banned, full stop, let alone for ever. If you get that far, then you're asking for it realy.--Seventythree 17:28, 20 September 2007 (BST)
  22. Against Blank or vandalise once(in bad faith), you get a warning to behave. Do it again, and you're gone permanently. Edits made in good faith, with a reasonable explanation are exempt. Let the sysops determine what is reasonable on a case-by-case. If the user is hated by the community - its likely for a reason.      Ekashp wuz here (aht harman bra!nz!)        16:52, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  23. No, when many users can go months or years wihout so much as a warning, you really have to put in some dedicated effort to get a ban, much less a ban of more than a day. I would hate to see that time and energy go unrecognized. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 21:43, 23 September 2007 (BST)
  24. We don't permaban for fun. If they're gone, they should stay gone. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 06:11, 27 September 2007 (BST)
  25. I'm not sure we're allowed to vote change, but I agree with many against voters, however, I think we should definitely do two things: first, users who are or were banned should have to have their profile say why they were banned, and second, sysops should be demoted if it's proven that they witnessed vandalism and let it pass without even a warning (not quite banning but if someone got 20 warnings because of this it would be relevant...). also, we can report vandalism? Where? --AlexanderRM 23:30, 27 September 2007 (BST)
    1. Report it in UD:A/VB --Slightly Lions 12:23, 29 September 2007 (BST)
  26. As Matt. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:12, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  27. --Zod Rhombus 00:46, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  28. Narr? narrr...--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 28 September 2007 (BST)
  29. Kill - As all above. --Slightly Lions 12:23, 29 September 2007 (BST)
  30. --Wooty 00:46, 30 September 2007 (BST)


Voting Closed - Motion failed, 2 For, 30 Against. --The Grimch U! E! 16:15, 1 October 2007 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Banning_Policy&oldid=844549"